Fletchings on Turkish/Mughal arrows

Jos?Dom · Post by **Jos?Dom** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:09 pm

I wonder why the Turkish used to fletch their arrows so close to the nock grooves. I noticed this pattern on flight and war arrows. Maybe there?s an areodinamic advantage but I feel it?s awkward to hold the ring and crush the feathers with finger pressure. Any clues?

Here?re some examples:

http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayso ... ery2.shtml

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:26 am

Unfortunately we can't watch authentic traditional Turkish archery technique; but I have seen several cultures which grip the string quite a few centimetres below the arrow nock. Doing so would minimize the risk of friction between the arrow nock and the archer's finger.

The further back the flteching, the better the stabilizing effect would be. Turkish science must have reckoned that the normal fish-tailing motion of the arrow was causing drag because they invested a lot of effort in designing arrows which resisted fish-tailing (i.e. the barelled shaft, which is hard to make.)

They must have deduced this problem, because it is is impossible to observe directly without modern equipment.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:40 pm

Both you an Stephen are on the right track. The stabilising effect of feathers is increased by moving them further from the centre of balance of the arrow. It gives them a greater lever arm to work with. Obviously you cannot move them past the nock. The faster the fletchings act, the less energy is wasted correcting the arrows flight. The lower and smaller fletching allowed by putting them close to the nock mean there is less drag on the arrow when it is travelling straight.

In shooting, these low fletchings do not cause a problem. In flight shooting, the Turks would nock half an inch above the thumb. As the bowstring was pulled the arrow would be brought down onto the thumb by the changing angle of the string. Only a slight pressure is necessary on the side of the nock. The feathers spring back as soon as you release.

The Turks would use the cock feather down (Y) when shooting in a siper. When shooting over the thumb, it is better to have the cock feather up.

M Hardman · Post by **M Hardman** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:54 pm

In modern archery we put the cock feather facing out from the bow do we not? Is there any technical reason why the Turks placed the cock feather facing up?

I've observed that on nearly all Islamic military arrows, the fletches are extremely low and quite long, whereas in the standard English war arrow, the fletches are comparably quite tall. Is this due to the extra stabilisation needed when shooting with fingers?

Jos?Dom · Post by **Jos?Dom** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:01 pm

Actually, I already made an arrow with typical Turkish/Mughal fletchings and it works fine. Since the height of the fletching is low on the extremes and the height increases towards the middle, it really doesn't bother on the area where the thumbring and fingers are placed. If I use a different fletching shape, things would change.

Bede, I'm always willing to read your posts, most of the time you surprise me with less known details and facts. I can guess that you know the way Turks placed the feathers according to which device or shooting discipline because you inspected closely arrows from museum, but how do you know the way they used to place their thumbs on the bowstring?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:45 am

Mustafa Kani in the book he wrote in the nineteenth century ( Telhis-i Resail-?r-Rum?t ) gives very precise instructions for shooting. These include how to grip the string with the thumb ring, where to place the arrow, how far to draw it into the siper and how to hold the bow hand. Hein translated this into German and Klopsteg (Turkish Archery and the Composite Bow) used this for his English translation.

I really hope some of our Turkish colleagues will have the time to do a direct translation into English. It is important that it should be translated in to modern Turkish too. Aside from the alphabet, there are many differences in vocabulary between modern Turkish and Ottoman Turkish. This is no small project.

I have shot arrows with quite large feathers, cock feather up and down, and found little difference in their flight. The low feathers used by most Middle Eastern archers are even less problem as observed above. The Western system of fletching puts one feather directly against the index finger and is not as comfortable, but it still works with a thumb ring. However, it has problems with a siper because the lower hen feather will be stripped by the tail edge of the groove. A feather pointing directly downwards is undamaged. This is based on experiment. I am not sure what the mechanism is. The down pointing feather is based on a diagram in Klopsteg which he took from Hein, I believe.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:56 am

I finally have a reprint of Hein's translation of Mustafa Kani and am one step closer to the original Turkish.

Though much of Klopsteg's translation is accurate, some of Hein's work has inaccuracies caused by his lack of familiarity with archery. Klopsteg was aware of this but we have greater resources than either of them (including their own work). Because of modern work by our Turkish friends and direct comparisons to Korean and Chinese practice, I think we are in a better position to interpret some of the old literature.

The reprint I have contains von Hammer-Purgstall's treatise as well with its illustrations directly from Kani. This contains diagrams of tools and the original spelling in Ottoman Turkish.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:53 pm

Bede; glad you got your text. My thinking is that Persian fletch placement is traditional, and is based upon some notion or superstition not related to function. It does make little difference but it does make some. The inside fletch rubs the bow. If used upsidedown, the "cock" and inside fletch rub.

In the "+" four fletch configuration, the two cock fletches rub alternately. That leaves the "X" four fletch configuration. More work, a little more drag at great distance, but even wear, no need at all to check fletch alignment. The best of all arrangements.

This fletch style, though not common, is seen through many periods. -j-

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:39 am

Jack,
I agree and I think that if something did not make a noticeable difference, no one would bother to change it. I doubt that superstition is the source. Looking at some of the Indo-Persian arrows I have, I did not think the placement was so precise.

Regarding the Western tradition, the two hen feathers rub against the bow and one of them rubs against the hand as well. The generally lower Oriental fletch may actually produce less friction when compared to the higher Western fletch. However, with a perfectly matched arrow, the shaft should curve around the bow and there should be no friction with a Western release.

At target distances I can see no obvious advantage for either fletching style if the feathers are low. If there was one, it should show up on a chronograph because it is a change in an initial condition that takes place as the arrow leaves the bow, but before it reaches the chronograph. My chronograph measures down to one tenth of a foot per second. Sometimes I can shoot consistently enough to have successive shots the same speed, but I think I would have to make a machine to test this.

One thing that does occur to me is that the large Oriental nocks do not hit the side of the bow grip on release. The feathers are often only fractions of an inch higher so the possible friction is very small.

The earliest reference to the two styles I have found is the arrows excavated from Dura Europos. Some are Western fletched and some are Oriental fletched, but all are fletched up to the nock. The Qin Shihuangdi tomb bronze model crossbow arrows are fletched Western style I think, but that is normal for crossbow arrows.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:10 am

Bede and all; In case you think people are not superstitious about their archery practices, I relate this story from a few years ago.

Ted Bradford asked me to write for his Glade magazine in the UK( England). He has such a strong accent and his speech patterns that I agreed if he would not rewrite my material in King's English, not inject England terminology and etc. He agreed but insisted on England spelling and we proceeded from there.

One of the other authors wrote me through letters to the editor about my use in an article of the term cock and hen feathers. He said that there was no such thing as hen feathers, that these were shaft (or maybe shaftment) feathers, that cock meant lead or out front or standing up.

I responded in print that all the feathers were attached to the shaft and besides, millions of Americans knew and used this terminology and I would continue.

This fellow followed up by saying that cock feather had nothing to do with roosters, that I was somehow a bit deviant by insisting so and that the term hen feathers, and I quote "was the bastard son of ignorance" and that I should join him in doing what we could to stamp out this expression.

Our letters to the editor were being watched by not a few subscribers. Others got involved. I could'nt see what all the fuss was about but this discussion went on for quite some time, others taking it a lot more serious than I did. -j-

GADGET · Post by **GADGET** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:00 am

In aircraft aerodynamics the stabilization power is measured by a magnitude called TAIL VOLUME.

The TAIL VOLUME is the surface of the stabilizing devices (horizontal/vertical stabilizer plus elevator/rudder) times the distance of the center of pressure of the tail Main Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) to the center of gravity of the airplane.

Setting things clear, the stabilizing effect is directly proportional to the distance of the tail to the CoG and the surface. The same goes for arrows, the stabilizing effect is directly proportional to the surface of the feathers and the distance of them to the FOC.

This means that with smaller feathers placed well back we can get the same stabilizing forces than with bigger feathers placed forward.

Advantages are obvious as drag is directly proportional to the surface of the feathers used. So, with small well-aft feathers we can get a well stabilized arrow that could fly longer distances. This is the obvious solution for a war or competition flight arrow.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:24 pm

Thanks Gadget,
What you wrote is what my understanding was too, though you put it much better.

Jack,
I agree that superstition does exist in archery, both ancient and modern. However, I don't think that the position of feathers is a result of it. Superstition usually means a belief crediting a supernatural force with an effect in real life. Without evidence it is had to say what caused the position of fletching on old arrows. We do know something of the beliefs of people about left-handed and right handed feathers because it has been written down.

Your example of the naming of feathers is a good example of how words change their meaning and how irrational the naming of the parts of an arrow is. Aside from cock and hen feathers we have the head attached to the foot! I think the American usage is just as good as the British. There are many examples of similar things in English. Sometimes terminology dies out and is replaced. I have heard of the concept of "shaftment feathers", but since all feathers are attached to the shaftment it makes no more sense than the other. In Arabic, the upright feather was called the "male" feather.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:44 pm

Fetishism and ceremony are well entrenched in superstition.

Moving along, as I understand it there are only two ways to create aerodynamic stability in arrows; by type and placement of fletchings and by placement of weight.

I read an old text about a Persian archer who shot unfletched arrows made of four different woods. The woods were arranged with the heaviest one forward and the lightest at the nock, all neatly spliced together into one solid shaft. Although I would like to try this arrangement, I have not yet done so.

Since we are having this discussion. has anyone else tried this? -j-

Orda Khan · Post by **Orda Khan** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:04 pm

I haven't but my experience with various arrow set ups as I sought the best suited to my bow, is contrary to the above statements. Forgetting various spines and weight of both shaft and head, in all my experiments, longer fletchings produced better flight characteristics. Low profile fletchings of 5.75" give my arrows a very nice cast and they impact in a straight line from 5m upwards.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:06 am

Jack,
I remember a discussion of a sectional flight arrow with an ibex horn point, reed and wood in the shaft. Is that the one you mean?

I have recently repaired an arrow in the Turkish style with a single diagonal splice. The arrow was tapered so it was hard to get the join straight but I eventually managed it. It flew straight.

Orda,
Without doubt, you can make any arrow fly straight with enough fletching, but you pay for it with drag. Surviving Turkish, Persian and Indo-Persian arrows have relatively small feathers. They require greater skill to shoot, but they fly faster and farther. Perhaps the lowness of the fletching cleared the bow more cleanly. I know from the old bows I have examined that there is rarely any wear on the arrow pass.
Ultimately you choose what works for you. That is the advantage of having a wide range of techniques to select from.